DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 4/15/25 is considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation of “linear or belt-like with one end as an open end” is indefinite in that it is not made clear, concise, and exact whether the options presented are “linear with one and as an open end or belt-like with one and as an open end” or “linear, or belt-like with one and as an open end”, which in turn leaves ambiguous the nature of the therein unmentioned “one end” in the linear case; additionally, the limitation of “both ends of the first conductor portion” is ambiguous as one or both of the ends of the first conductor are not previously established, dependent upon interpretation of the aforementioned limitation, thus leading to ambiguity regarding the disposition of the first end portion of the second conductor portion. To expedite prosecution, the claims will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Claims 2-10 are included for their dependence upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2016/0241288) in view of Tagaki et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2005/0190107).
Regarding claim 1, Aoki et al. teaches (Fig. 3A) an antenna comprising: a dielectric substrate (see ¶68, layer 301 is disposed on a dielectric substrate, not shown in drawings); a feed conductor portion provided on the dielectric substrate (330); a first conductor portion that is provided on a substrate surface of the dielectric substrate, is connected to the feed conductor portion, and is linear or belt-like with one end as an open end (310).
Aoki does not teach a second conductor portion that is linear or belt-like and includes a first end portion and a second end portion on an opposite side to the first end portion, wherein the first end portion is connected to an intermediate portion between both ends of the first conductor portion, the second end portion is an open end, and the second conductor portion protrudes from the intermediate portion.
Tagaki et al. teaches (Fig. 3) an antenna comprising: a feed conductor portion (104); a first conductor that is connected to the feed conductor portion, and is linear or belt-like with one end as an open end (101); and a second conductor portion that is linear or belt-like and includes a first end portion and a second end portion on an opposite side to the first end portion, wherein the first end portion is connected to an intermediate portion between both ends of the first conductor portion, the second end portion is an open end, and the second conductor portion protrudes from the intermediate portion (102, see connection to intermediate portion of 101 between open end and 104).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna of Aoki to include a second conductor portion that is linear or belt-like and includes a first end portion and a second end portion on an opposite side to the first end portion, wherein the first end portion is connected to an intermediate portion between both ends of the first conductor portion, the second end portion is an open end, and the second conductor portion protrudes from the intermediate portion, employing the teachings of Tagaki.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling operation of the antenna on a plurality of radio frequencies (Tagaki, ¶3).
Regarding claim 7, Aoki teaches the antenna according to claim 1.
Aoki does not teach wherein a ratio of a dimension in a length direction of the second conductor portion to a dimension in a length direction of the first conductor portion is 0.36 or greater and 1.2 or lower.
Tagaki teaches (Fig. 3) an antenna comprising: a feed conductor portion (104); a first conductor that is connected to the feed conductor portion, and is linear or belt-like with one end as an open end (101); and a second conductor portion that is linear or belt-like and includes a first end portion and a second end portion on an opposite side to the first end portion, wherein the first end portion is connected to an intermediate portion between both ends of the first conductor portion, the second end portion is an open end, and the second conductor portion protrudes from the intermediate portion (102, see connection to intermediate portion of 101 between open end and 104), wherein a ratio of a dimension in a length direction of the second conductor portion to a dimension in a length direction of the first conductor portion is 0.36 or greater and 1.2 or lower (length of second conductor portion corresponds to 1710-1880 MHz (approx. 1.58 inches as a quarter-wavelength element), length of first conductor portion corresponds to 880-960 MHz (approx.. 3.2 inches as a quarter-wavelength element), resulting in a taught ratio of 1.58/3.2 or 0.49375; see ¶34).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna of Aoki such that a ratio of a dimension in a length direction of the second conductor portion to a dimension in a length direction of the first conductor portion is 0.36 or greater and 1.2 or lower, employing the teachings of Tagaki.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling operation of the antenna on desired dual frequencies (Tagaki, ¶37).
Furthermore, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape or size of a component. Where the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular shape, a change of shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 8, Aoki teaches the antenna according to claim 1, wherein the first conductor portion constructs an inverted-F antenna (see Fig. 3A).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2016/0241288) in view of Tagaki et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2005/0190107) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grossman (US PG Pat. No. 5,426,439).
Regarding claim 2, Aoki teaches the antenna according to claim 1.
Aoki does not teach wherein the dielectric substrate includes a retaining hole into which the first end portion is inserted.
Grossman teaches (Figs. 1, 6) an antenna comprising: a dielectric substrate (11); a first conductor portion that is provided on a substrate surface of the dielectric substrate (12), and is linear or belt-like with one end as an open end (see Fig. 6); and a second conductor portion that is linear or belt-like and includes a first end portion and a second end portion on an opposite side to the first end portion (44), wherein the first end portion is connected to an intermediate portion between both ends of the first conductor portion (30), the second end portion is an open end, and the second conductor portion protrudes from the intermediate portion (see Fig. 6); and wherein the dielectric substrate includes a retaining hole into which the first end portion is inserted (such as hole 15, Fig. 1; see insertion of 44 in Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna of Aoki such that the dielectric substrate includes a retaining hole into which the first end portion is inserted, employing the teachings of Grossman.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling affixing of the second conductor portion to the first antenna portion in a secure manner (Grossman, Col 5 lines 23-26).
Regarding claim 3, Aoki teaches the antenna according to claim 2.
Aoki does not teach wherein the intermediate portion includes a through hole into which the first end portion is inserted.
Grossman teaches (Figs. 1, 6) an antenna comprising: a dielectric substrate (11); a first conductor portion that is provided on a substrate surface of the dielectric substrate (12), and is linear or belt-like with one end as an open end (see Fig. 6); and a second conductor portion that is linear or belt-like and includes a first end portion and a second end portion on an opposite side to the first end portion (44), wherein the first end portion is connected to an intermediate portion between both ends of the first conductor portion (30), the second end portion is an open end, and the second conductor portion protrudes from the intermediate portion (see Fig. 6); and wherein the dielectric substrate includes a retaining hole into which the first end portion is inserted (such as hole 15, Fig. 1; see insertion of 44 in Fig. 6), wherein the intermediate portion includes a through hole into which the first end portion is inserted (see Fig. 6, through hole in 12 at 30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna of Aoki such that the intermediate portion includes a through hole into which the first end portion is inserted, employing the teachings of Grossman.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling affixing of the second conductor portion to the first antenna portion in a secure manner (Grossman, Col 5 lines 23-26).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2016/0241288) in view of Tagaki et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2005/0190107) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hall (US Patent No. 4,587,524).
Regarding claim 6, Aoki teaches the antenna according to claim 1.
Aoki does not teach wherein the second end portion includes a plate-shaped conductor portion along an intersecting plane that intersects a length direction of the second conductor portion.
Hall teaches (Fig. 2) an antenna comprising: a conductor portion that is linear or belt-like and includes a first end portion and a second end portion on an opposite side to the first end portion (22), wherein the second end portion is an open end, and includes a plate-shaped conductor portion along an intersecting plane that intersects a length direction of the second conductor portion (32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna of Aoki such that the second end portion includes a plate-shaped conductor portion along an intersecting plane that intersects a length direction of the second conductor portion, employing the teachings of Hall.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of reducing the physical size requirement for a monopole element while retaining desired resonance frequency (Hall, Col 2 lines 34-60).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2016/0241288) in view of Tagaki et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2005/0190107) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anderson (US PG Pub. No. 2005/0110692).
Regarding claim 9, Aoki teaches the antenna according to claim 1.
Aoki does not teach wherein the first conductor portion constructs an inverted-L antenna element.
Anderson teaches (Fig. 2) an antenna comprising: a feed conductor portion (3); a first conductor portion that is connected to the feed conductor portion, with one end as an open end (12); and a second conductor portion that is linear or belt-like and includes a first end portion and a second end portion on an opposite side to the first end portion (6), wherein the first conductor portion constructs an inverted-L antenna element (2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna of Aoki such that the first conductor portion constructs an inverted-L antenna element, employing the teachings of Anderson.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of improving bandwidth of the antenna (Anderson, ¶46 lines 1-4).
Furthermore, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. Where the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular shape, a change of shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 10, Aoki teaches the antenna according to claim 1.
Aoki does not teach wherein the first conductor portion constructs a meander line structure.
Anderson teaches (Fig. 2) an antenna comprising: a feed conductor portion (3); a first conductor portion that is connected to the feed conductor portion, with one end as an open end (12); and a second conductor portion that is linear or belt-like and includes a first end portion and a second end portion on an opposite side to the first end portion (6), wherein the first conductor portion constructs an meander line structure (9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna of Aoki such that the first conductor portion constructs a meander line structure, employing the teachings of Anderson.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of improving enabling multiple resonances of the antenna (Anderson, ¶10 lines 10-12).
Furthermore, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. Where the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular shape, a change of shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the limitation of “wherein the first end portion includes a plate- shaped base end conductor portion that extends along the intermediate portion”, and the modification of the art of record to incorporate this feature would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 is included for its dependence upon claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yanagi et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0044023), Cheng (US PG Pub. No. 2008/0024366), Pros et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2007/0046548) each teach planar antennas comprising multiple conductor portions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan E. DeWitt whose telephone number is (571)270-1235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday from 8:30 AM to 3:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dameon Levi can be reached at 571-272-2105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/Jordan E. DeWitt/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights